Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 40
On the Relationship between Mozarabic Sibilants and Andalusian Seseo
Yasmine Beale-Rivaya Texas State University-San Marcos
Introduction
Scholars such as Ralph Penny and Ramón Menéndez Pidal have pointed to the Mozarabic language to explain some of the more peculiar features of southern Spanish such as Andalusian seseo, the quality only having one sibilant phoneme [s] rather than 1 having two phonemes [s] and [ɵ] common in other peninsular dialects and languages. Further, parallels have been drawn between Andalusian Spanish and Latin American Spanish as Latin American Spanish is considered to be mostly of Andalusian heritage (Parodi, Fuentes, Lipski, Galmés de Fuentes 1962).2 To truly understand the dynamic of Andalusian and Latin American Spanish it is essential to trace the development of the most characteristic features of Andalusian Spanish especially since these have been attributed to the influence of and contact with Arabic and in turn have shaped the nature of the Spanish language in the Americas, as in the case of seseo. The development of the sibilants in the Iberian peninsula has been analyzed by various scholars. Galmés de Fuentes (1962) discusses the quality of medieval /ç/ and /z/ mainly in Ibero-Romance and in other Romance Languages such as Italian, French, Catalán, Gallego, and Latin American Spanish by analyzing their corresponding uses in Arabic. Amado Alonso examines in a series of articles the chronology of the development and the quality of Spanish sibilants (1947, 1951a, b, c). Lawrence Kiddle discusses what he called Middle Spanish “Sibilant Turmoil.” A. Alonso classifies /s/ in Spanish. Finally Torreblanca (1978, 1988a, b) compares Spanish, Catalán, Portuguese, and Latin /s/. In spite of the vast bibliography on Spanish sibilants and the dating of particular phonological changes (such as the desonorization of -z- to become -s- which varies from the end of the fourteenth Century to the beginning-mid of the fifteenth Century), I argue that there has been relatively little analysis of the role of contact and bilingualism in the Iberian Peninsula on specific phonological developments. In particular with regards to sibilants, Arabic and Andalusi Arabic [AA]3 have been cited
1 A speaker of seseo would not distinguish phonetically between „casa‟ and „caza‟ while a speaker of „ceseo‟ would. In some areas, as in Seville, there also exists „ceceo‟ where the letter s is pronounced [θ] in all contexts. For these speakers „casa‟ is pronounced [kaθa]. 2 Latin American Spanish shares the same qualities of Andalusian Spanish due to the fact that the main ports for the new world were in the South of Spain, especially Seville- the main exit port to the New World. The boats then stopped in the Canary Islands for varying periods of time to restock and then went onto the colonies. As a result, a levelization of dialects (koineization) occurred in which the Andalusian dialect predominated. For a more sustained discussion regarding the process of koineization and the language in the New World see Lipski, Parodi, and Tuten. 3 Andalusi Arabic [AA] is the variety of Arabic used in Al-Andalus. In the northernmost regions of Al- Andalus, such as in Medieval Toledo, this language was maintained for several centuries. It is through
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 41
in so far as they inform the quality and the perception of early Castilian sibilants. Developments which have been difficult to explain through principles of internal linguistic processes have been attributed to the influence of Andalusi Arabic or Mozarabic but, to date, there has been no study which directly places the data of the Mozarabic documents of Toledo within the chronology of the development of the Iberian sibilants identifying how the interaction of these languages confirms or denies influence or causation for seseo. Nor has there been a comparison of those geographical areas known to have been important Mozarabic communities in which dialects with seseo exist today. This paper seeks to place the Mozarabic data within the chronology of Castilian development in order to determine the relationship between the sibilant systems of both languages. In particular, I analyze the sibilant phonemes of both Romance and Arabic origins used in the collection of legal documents in Andalusi Arabic of the Mozarabs of Toledo of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and compare the data found within these to that of early Castilian. I argue that the data challenges us to reassess the simple paradigm of Mozarabic causation for Andalusian seseo. Further, given the discord between the geographical area of seseo in the Iberian Peninsula and the area historically populated by the Mozarabs, I contend that the case for Mozarabic influenced seseo has not been satisfactorily proven (Asín, Kern, Galmés de Fuentes 1983). Rather, the idea of Mozarabic influenced seseo seems to be motivated by extra-linguistic considerations. In particular, the idea may have been perpetuated by philological scholars of the late nineteenth Century such as Francisco Simonet (1867) and Francisco Pons Boigues whose preoccupations with establishing a continuous lineage between the Visigothic kingdoms and denying the “semitic” heritage of Spain as argued for by Francisco Fernández y González may have lead to shallow conclusions (Martin-Márquez 27-60). Monroe has argued that “since Menéndez Pidal‟s work was far superior in quality and reliability to that of his contemporaries, the unfortunate conclusion was drawn that Romance philology was more reliable than Arabic studies” (246-63). The general assumption that data presented in early works of Romance philology was reliable would explain why, although the Mozarabic theory has not been fully explored, it continues to be perpetuated by contemporary scholars and linguists in particular.4 Finally, given the considerations of this article, I explore some alternative solutions for the development of Andalusian seseo.
The Development of the Spanish Sibilant Phonemes
contact with this language that Arabic words and expressions are said to have entered into the Castilian- Spanish language. For more on this topic, see Corriente, Beale-Rosano-Rivaya, and Ferrando Frutos. 4 For further reading on the debate of the extent and role of the Arabic influence on the formation of a Spanish identity consult Gómez, Vidal Delgado León, Fanjul, Castro, Catlos, Chalmeta, and Sánchez Albornoz.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 42
To help in understanding the development of the phonological characteristics of „seseo‟ and „ceseo‟ in Spanish, I summarize here the historical evolution of the sibilant phonemes from Latin to Spanish.5
Figure 1: Latin Consonant System
Bilabial Labio-Dental Dental Alveolar Velar- Glottal Plosives /b/ /p/ /d/ /t/ /g/ /k/ fricatives /f/ /s/ /h/6
nasals /m/ /n/ laterals /l/ trills /r/
As can be seen in Figure 1, Latin had two productive fricative consonants: one sibilant, the voiceless dental /s/ (lat: casa), and the bilabial /f/ (lat: ferro). Phonological changes to Vulgar Latin contributed to the creation of a much more complex consonantal system in Middle and Modern Spanish.7
Figure 2: Modern Spanish Consonant System8
Bilabial Labio-Dental Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar- Glottal Plosives /b/ /p/ /d/ /t/ /g/ /k/ fricatives /ƀ/ /ɸ/ /f/ /v/ // // /s/ /z/ /x/ /ɤ/ /h/
Affricates /t/ /t/ nasals /m/ /n/ // laterals /l/ /ƚ/ /ƛ/ /y/
5 Based on the following models: Harris, Lloyd, Penny, Lapesa. 6 /h/ was eliminated in Latin by the 1st Century BC: (Penny 52-53). 7 It is generally accepted that Modern Spanish developed from Vulgar Latin which was the oral Latin. Vulgar Latin tended towards simplification such as: the loss of the case system, simplification of vowel system, voiceless phonemes became voiced intervocalically, changes in verb tenses (Lloyd 2-6, Penny 2- 4). 8 Only the main sounds of the Castilian have been included while dialectal variations have not as the purpose of this chart is to depict the main results of historical phonological changes rather than describe all of the phonetic variations.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 43
Trills /r/ /r/
Even a superficial analysis of Figures 1 and 2 reveals the extensive development of the phonetic system in Spanish. There are many more allophones and sound variations in Modern Spanish than there were in Vulgar Latin. For example, while Latin had only two productive fricative consonants, modern Spanish has 11. Figure 3 details the relevant phonological changes from Latin to Spanish.
Figure 3: Creation and Evolution of the Spanish Sibilants, Velar Fricatives, and Affricates
Latin Example Old Spanish Modern Final Result Castilian /s/ SAPERE s s Saber [saber] CASA Casa [casa] MINUS Menos [menos] /t/ + [i]/C___ MARTIU ts ɵ Marzo [marɵo] /k/ + [i/e] CALCEA t->ts/+c___ ɵ Calza [kalɵa] QUINQUE t ->d /v__v DICIT Cinco [ɵinko] Dice [diɵe] /d/ + [j]/C___ HORDEOLUS ts ɵ Orzuelo [orɵuelo] /kt/+[i] DIRECTIARE ts ɵ Aderezar [adereɵar] [ttj] MATTTIANA tts->ts ɵ Manzana [manɵana] [kkj] BRACCIU kks->ks->ts ɵ Brazo [braɵo] Pt+[j] CAPTIARE ts ɵ Cazar [caɵar] K+#__(e/i) CENA ts ɵ Cena [ɵena] Sk+(e/i) PISCIS ts ɵ Peces [peɵes] KK+(e/i) FLACIDU ts ɵ Lazio [laɵio] T+(v)_y PUTEU dz ɵ Pozo [poɵo] K+(v)_ (e/i) ERICIU dz ɵ Erizo [eriɵo] VICINU Vecino [veɵino] Word initial /i/ IUSTUS d x Justo [xusto] V+/kl/ OKULO x Ojo [oxo]
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 44
V+/gl/ TEGULA x Teja [texa] Kt+[i/e] PACE t ɵ Paz [paɵ] (cons)Pl AMPLU t t Ancho [anto] (cons)CL MANCLA t t Mancha [manta] (cons)FL INFLARE t t Inchar [intar] Lt MULTU t t Mucho [muto]
As can be seen in Figure 3, there were a multitude of Latin combinations that contributed to the development of the sibilant system. What the chart above does not explore is the different stages of general development. Figure 4 below outlines the period this study focuses on Medieval or Early Castilian to Modern Castilian and Andalusian.
Figure 4: Development from Medieval Castilian to Modern Castilian and Andalusian
Medieval Stage ts dz S Z t Orthography ç z Ss S x j/g Modern Castilian ɵ S t X Phonology Orthography c/z S Ch j/g Andalusian s S t X Phonology
In Medieval Castilian, the phonological system was still developing. There were 7 phonemes represented by different graphemes. The row detailing on Modern Castilian Phonology really reflects the language as of the sixteenth Century (Kiddle 328). In addition, the chart assumes a progression in development from Castilian to Andalusian rather than treating the development of the two dialects as separate and disconnected. The implication is that the Andalusian we know today is in fact a progression or a further development from Castilian and not an independent language. The Mozarabic theory would rather invoke a separate development for Andalusian and assume that Andalusian features „seseo,‟ argued to be of Mozarabic influence, while Castilian is of Northern Spanish origin and having the feature of „ceseo.‟ However, the chart does not do justice to the complexity of the development of the Andalusian sibilant system. In addition, this chart is not intended to suggest that there are no dialectal variations within Andalusian. For example, in Almería we find „seseo,‟ while in Sevilla there is „ceceo.‟ Sevillan „ceceo‟ is considered an odd or amusing
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 45
feature even for Andalusian speakers. However, the focus of this paper is not the varieties of Andalusian but rather on the general characteristics of this dialect. The development of Andalusian Spanish can be characterized as follows: the resulting [ts] in the Medieval stage undergoes de-affrication to become [s] while in other dialects, such as Castilian, [ts] becomes [θ]. Castilian [θ] developed via the following process: /ts/ -> /tθ/-> /θ/. According to Penny, the Castilian Spanish phoneme [θ] then became [s] in Andalusin (88-90). Harris, on the other hand, argues that /ts/ becomes /s/ directly Andalusian (190, 197). No matter the proposal one adopts, the final result for Andalusian Spanish is [s]. The central question regarding the development of Andalusian is: what is the causal element for the phonological changes in this dialect of Spanish? Is Andalusian seseo the result of internal transformations or did Mozarabic influence Andalusian through linguistic contact? Can we look at Mozarabic to resolve the debate of whether Andalusian developed independently from Castilian or rather as a progression of Castilian? What implications does this have for our understanding of the role of linguistic contact in Medieval Spain and the relative importance of the Mozarabs for modern Spain?
The Mozarabic Sibilants
The Mozarabic community, those Christians who found themselves in Al-Andalus after the conquest and remained within the territory throughout the Al-Andalus period (711-1492), became highly Arabized, spoke AA as well as Mozarabic, a Romance written in Arabic characters.9 Both of these languages were contemporary to each other and to early Castilian. The data analyzed here is drawn from the collection of Mozarabic documents of twelfth and thirteenth Century Toledo currently housed in the Archivo Histórico Nacional and the Archivos catedralicios y capitulares of the Cathedral of Toledo, as well as from Francisco Simonet‟s early glossary. This collection of documents has been studied in important works. Francisco Pons Boigues was the first to write about the content of the documents. The most famous and still most relevant work on this collections is the edited work by González Palencia, and most recently Ignacio Ferrando Frutos produced a philological study of the Andalusi Arabic contained within the documents. They are a collection of legal documents (wills, deeds, exchanges of property) from post-Reconquest Toledo and are written in Andalusi Arabic for use by parties entering into contract mainly with the Church but also used by lay people where at least one person involved in the contract is of Christian origin. The data reveals the following consonantal system:
9 The Mozarabs found themselves in the unique position to act as the bridge for Al-Andalus and Castille during the Reconquest. They had important communities in Toledo, Mallorca and Valencia, Sevilla, and Granada. For a current discussion about Mozarabic identity see Aillet, Penelas & Roisse, and Hitchcock.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 46
Figure 5: Mozarabic Consonant System
Bi- Labio- Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular labial Dental Plosives /b/ /t/ /ț/ /d/ /ḑ/ /k/ /g/ /q/ fricatives /f/ /v/ // /s/ /ș/ // // /ʁ/ /h/
Affricates
nasals /m/ /n/ /l/ /ɫ/ /ʎ/ laterals
Trills /r/
It is clear that Mozarabic has a rich phonological system. In order to compare this data set with that of Castilian and Andalusian, let us first identify the main sibilant phonemes and distinguish the allophones. [s] and [] appear to be in free variation. They can appear in the same position and, in some cases in the same words. This phenomenon occurs whether the word in question is of Arabic or of Latin origin.
Word initially: [istara] استزى itara] or] اضتزى TO PURCHASE verb: past tense: purchased itiban] Proper last name] اضتاته ESTEBAN sandal] Castilian: cendal] سَوْﺪَﻝ SENDAL Latin:CENDALE sant] or [ant] Castilian: Santo] ضىت or سىت SANT Latin: SANTUS
Intervocalic: qabu̅sa] Castilian: capacho] ﻗتﻮسﻪ CABBUSA Latin: CAVUS almon] Proper last name] ضلمﻮن SALMON etembir] Castilian: Septiembre] مضتوثز SEPTEMBER biabab] Arabic: for any reason] بشتة bisabab] or] تسثة REASON
After another consonant: ʁaria] Proper last name] غزضية ʁarsia] or] غزسية GARCIA
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 47
The data above serves to show that in the Mozarabic documents, [s] and [] are in free variation. A rule cannot be applied to consistently predict whether one or the other phoneme will be produced. In the case of GARCIA while in Castilian k+i-> /ts/, in Mozarabic we find directly either [s] or [] in the same period as Castilian /ts/. It is not immediately apparent whether Mozarabic underwent the same process as Castilian from this limited data. It may be that Mozarabic developed in the following manner k+i-> /ts/ -> [s] or [] but that it did so faster than Castilian. However, consider:
ars̠obisb] Castilian: arzobispo] ارصثسة ARÇOBIXPO Latin: ARCHIEPISCOPUS
„Arzobispo‟ produced a different result than did the previous set of words. Latin k+I -> Arzobispo‟ is a learned word, and would not have succumbed to same rate of„ .ص s̠ or phonological changes that more common words would have undergone. Therefore, we find evidence of two different stages of phonological development in the same body of evidence. This example betrays a previous step in the development of the Mozarabic sibilants. It is common for learned words, or words that are only used in particular contexts to retain an older phonological form, while more commonly used terms develop at a faster rate. Galmés de Fuentes (1983: 88-89) reports finding similar data: Barçile, çerba, moçuela. These examples serve to exemplify that in Mozarabic there must have been a stage where affricate the sequence /ts/ was productive but, he goes on, due to their numerous manners of representing /s/, they did not linger in the palatal position but is one of the manners of representing /ts/ of ص ./quickly moved on to the alveolar /s words of Latin origin. It is possible that speakers of Mozarabic could not readily distinguish the Arabic /s̠/ from /ts/.10 Therefore, words of Arabic origin would have undergone the same phonological processes as those of Latin inheritance. Contrary to Galmés de Fuentes, I argue that it was not the writing that was the motivator for the linguistic change, but rather, the varying graphemic representations reflect the rapidly changing language itself. The data suggests the following Mozarabic development: k+[front vowel]->/ts/ briefly For example: Latin: CENDALE -> [tsandal] /ts/-> // Both are in the same point of articulation. [tsandal] -> [andal]
10 One could also argue that Arabic /s̠/->/ts/ in Mozarabic but there is not sufficient evidence to suggest differently depending on the origin of the word. If one ص that speakers of Mozarabic interpreted the argues that Mozarabic is a coherent linguistic system then it follows that the most likely argument is that one symbol represents one phoneme unless there is external evidence to suggest otherwise. 10 /ɵ/ developed from /ts/ and /dz/ in Castilian.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 48
//->/s/ [andal]->[sandal]
The data reflects that the transition from // to /s/ was not complete at the time the documents were produced. This rule would indicate that eventually, in the Mozarabic استزى itara] will be exclusively spelled] اضتزى ‟documents the word for „to purchase is ش istara]. In fact, as the collection of documents nears the thirteenth Century, the] .more consistently ص used with less frequency, being replaced by Through the influence and aid of the Mozarabic community and language, many Arabic words entered into the Spanish language. Many of these also included words with Arabic sibilants. Consider:
alzeitun] Spanish: aceituna origin: Arabic] الشيتﻮن OLIVE
In Southern Spanish, this word is pronounced today as [aseituna], but [aɵeituna] in the Castilian Spanish dialect. Following Penny‟s discussion of the development of the sibilant system in Spanish, this outcome is unexpected since pre-sixteenth Century /z/ should have devoiced, becoming /s/, therefore creating the impossibility of the existence 11 of the pronunciation [aɵeituna] in any dialect of Spanish and yet it exists. If /ɵ/ in „aceituna‟ developed from /z/, we should find many other words with this seemingly odd phenomenon. What accounts for this unexpected result? On the verso of several of the Mozarabic documents of Toledo where the word „aceituna‟ appears we find the inscriptions: Aseytuna, Dazaituna, and Aldee dazeitona. [represented most closely the affricate [ʤ س This suggests that the orthographic symbol in Andalusi Arabic and was not pronounced as [z]. In turn, when „aceituna‟ was borrowed into Castilian it must have sounded like [aʤeituna]. The affricate [ʤ] devoiced to become [ts]. Castilian /ts/ became /ɵ/ and /s/ in Andalusian. The process of devoicing [ʤ] is not internal to Mozarabic but rather a process internal to Castilian. This process accounts for the following data:
diʤinbir] Lat: DECEMBER] دجىثز DECEMBER [ʤama̅ʔia̅] جماعة LAND WITHIN A PARISH [adʤa̅mʔa] الجامع CATHEDRAL OR LARGER CHURCH [adʤanu̅b] الجىﻮب NORTH
Unlike in Castilian, Arabic „dhaal‟ [] and „zaal‟ [z] merge in Mozarabic. Consider the is repeatedly المذكﻮر .[almakur] المذكﻮر ‟expression meaning „the afore mentioned
11 /ɵ/ developed from /ts/ and /dz/ in Castilian.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 49
almazkur] in the documents of the Mozarabs of Toledo. The] المشكﻮر written as consistency in the manner in which this item is written suggests that the phonemes represented by the „dhaal‟ and „zaal‟ have merged. I reproduce here examples from three different documents.
12 13 14
.‟zaa„س dhaal‟ dips below the line as would a„ ذ In each of the above examples the zaa‟ in this writing system, it would look exactly„ س In fact, if one were to reproduce a the same. If we take the word meaning olive, Spanish „aceituna‟ and Arabic „zeitun‟ .‟we can see that the „zaa‟ is transcribed exactly as the „dhaal ,سيتﻮن
15 [alzeitun]
The fact that the merging of the transcription of the „dhaal‟ and the „zaa‟ occurs irrespective of the origin of the word (whether Latin or Arabic) suggests that this phenomenon is not only be transcriptional but also phonological, however optional. Although // and /z/ are distinct phonemes, the auditory distinction poses difficulty for the Mozarabic speaker. In the Mozarabic documents // becomes [z]: //-> [z]/. This phenomenon also supports the argument that although scribes were trained in legalistic formulas, their level of education did not extend much further. These types of errors reveal a lack of familiarity or understanding of orthographic norms and the scribes rely on their linguistic perceptions to interpret spellings of standard words.
Figure 6 From Mozarab -> Castilian -> Andalusian
Mozarab K + (i/e) S s̠ ʤ ts S ts ʤ z t S t ʤ z S ʤ z
12 AHN: sección clero y secular, Toledo, Catedral: legajo: 3000 # 7. Copy # 3 dated 1253 from original dated January 1177. Sale of an olive grove by Elvira Díaz to Micael Mid(r)is. 13 AHN: sección clero y secular, Toledo, Catedral: legajo: 3002 #18: Dated February 1177. The sale of virgin land in Olías la Mayor in the favor of don Domingo ben Alrim of the convent of the church of San Clemente. 14 AHN: sección clero y secular, Toledo, Catedral: legajo: 3034 # 3. Dated July 1137. Donation to the Cathedral of Santa María of Toledo of an inheritance by Maria, daughter of Mair Temam. 15 AHN: sección clero y secular, Toledo, Catedral: legajo: 3000 # 7.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 50
s S s Ts z Castilian s S s s Andalusian s S s S s
Figure 6 summarizes the phonological changes discussed above. The most striking element of this chart is the fourth column which shows the changes to /ʤ/. Before being included in either Castilian or Andalusian, the phoneme /ʤ/ had already devoiced to become /ts/. This is a process that occurs before Castilian becomes the dominant language in Toledo, and before the development from /ts/ to // and /s/ which occurred in Castilian and Andalusian respectively. Had /dz/>/ts/ completed the cycle and become /s/ in Mozarabic, then one could argue that Andalusian seseo may have been influenced or motivated by Mozarabic seseo. However, this change had not occurred by the time and Castilian became the dominant language in Toledo. The data presented here supports the claim that the causal connection between Mozarabic and Andalusian seseo is, to say the least, spurious. There is no obvious reason, when looking at the data of the Mozarabic documents why the claim should be made that there is a causal connection between Mozarabic and Andalusian seseo. In fact the same sound in Mozarabic gave two completely different results in Castilian and Andalusian. Who is to say that it would have been impossible for /ts/ to develop into // in Andalusian? There is no reason internal to Mozarabic to explain why /ts/ became // in Castilian and produced a different result in Andalusian, mainly /s/. This data strongly sustains the idea that Andalusian seseo is an internal phenomenon and not a change which was produced through linguistic or cultural contact. The question becomes, why, in spite of the lack of data to support the Mozarabic-Andalusian seseo theory it is still perpetuated. I suggest that it is for two reasons. First, in order to support the idea of a Spanish identity, which is independent from a „semitic‟ one, it is useful to emphasize Mozarabic, which is an allusion to a continuous visigothic Christian presence throughout the Andalusi period, rather than recognize possible influences from linguistic contact with Arabic. However, as the evidence suggests, there would also not be a linguistic reason to call upon Arabic for the seseo in Andalusian. In fact, Andalusian seseo seems to be an internal development rather than external. As for the question of Vulgar Latin // resulting from word initial /i/ as in IUSTUS and IUNIUS, finally becoming /xusto/ and /xunio/ respectively in Modern Spanish. Mozarabic does not indicate a process of velarization of the yod (/i/). In the case of the words of Latin origin, all traces of the Laing /y/ or /i/ remain.
Consider: yusta] Lat: IUSTA Cast: Justa] يستة JUST yanai̅r] Lat: IANUS] يىيز JANUARY yiu̅ni̅o̅] Lat: IUNIUS] يﻮويﻪ JUNE yuanis] Lat: IUANUS] يﻮاوص JOHN
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 51
yulian] Lat: IULANUS] يليان JULIAN yulia] proper name] يَﻮلية JULIA
In each case of the above cases, the initial /y/ is still evident in Mozarabic, even in cases where it was lost in Castilian such as IANUS which became „enero‟ in Spanish. Had initial /y/ become /dz/ or /z/ in Mozarabic, given the alternation in the case of one would expect that this سيتﻮن almazkur] and zeitun] المشكﻮر and المذكﻮر [almakur] variation be apparent in this data as well. It is possible that the initial yod was pronounced /dz/ or /z/ in Mozarabic but there is no evidence in the documents to support this.
The Relationship between Geography and Phonology
In addition to the phonological evidence, it is useful to consider the geographical distribution of the contemporary seseo and „ceseo‟ and compare it with that of the most important Mozarabic communities. The analyses proposed by Penny et al. suggest that there should be no area where „ceceo‟ or „ceseo‟ is the predominant phonological characteristic which can historically be linked to Mozarabic. Therefore, the development of seseo can be strictly attributed to the Mozarabic influence on Castilian. Let us consider the principal areas of the Mozarabic dialects as identified by Galmés de Fuentes: Toledo, Seville, Mallorca and Valencia, Murcia, and Granada.
Figure 7 Distribution of Iberian seseo16
16 See Freixeiro.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 52
Figure 7 plots the areas where there is a dialectal distinction between the sibilant [s] and [ɵ] and where there is none. According to Susana Freixeiro, speakers in Toledo, the center of Mozarabic cultural identity, Granada, and parts of Murcia speakers distinguish /s/ and /ɵ/ as two separate phonemes. In Valencia/Mallorca, and Seville speakers do not make this distinction. Based on this dialectal map, the correlation between Andalusian seseo and Mozarabic is not immediately apparent given that the very areas where there had been a concentration of Mozarabs produced widely diverging linguistic results in terms of the sibilant phonemes. It seems that the predominant tendency is toward a phonemic distinction between [s] and [ɵ] in the Iberian Peninsula in general, and most of modern Spain in particular. The exceptions to this general trend are the areas encompassing: Portugal, Basque Country, Cataluña, Valencia, and spotted areas between Seville and Granada and along the Southern coast.
Conclusion
The extent of the lingering influence of Mozarabic on Modern Spain is a question that has fascinated scholars for some time and continues to be the central focus of scholarly publications (Hitchcock, Aillet, Penelas & Roisse). Despite the vast scholarship on the significance of the Mozarabs for Iberian history many questions remain. In fact, the very term Mozarab has been fraught with controversy, has been used inconsistently and, in some cases, abused within the scholarship (Barceló 255-58). In his most recent work, Hitchock spends a considerable amount of time on the terminological question of „Mozarab,‟ whether this term refers to those Arabized Christians living within or without Al-Andalus and whether one can really talk about an Arabized Christian-Mozarab vs. a convert to Islam-Muwallad. He argues that “to make a distinction on religious grounds […] is hazardous” because the affiliation to one or another religion seems to have been very superficial, at least in the early period of Al- Andalus (Hitchcock 35-39). If one follows this line of reasoning, it is difficult to argue for a Christian visigothic uninterrupted lineage, and therefore, the linguistic influence in a particular dialect of Spanish based on these affiliations is difficult to support. The Mozarabic community served as a bridge for the Castile and Al-Andalus during the period of the Reconquest. They were Christians, and therefore were familiar to the Christians of the North, on the one hand, and acted as cultural and linguistic interpreters for both the Northern Christians coming into Al-Andalus and the native populations of the area. In terms of their linguistic contributions, we know that it is through them that many Arabic terms were introduced into the Spanish language. However, to date the question as to the phonological contributions of Mozarabic to Castilian has not been thoroughly explored, in particular with regards to Andalusian seseo. It has been generally accepted in the scholarship that Andalusian seseo developed as a result of either linguistic contact or due to the presence of a Mozarabic substratum (Craddock) and yet, there has been little attention paid as to how and when this process might have
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 53
occurred. Further, there has been little analysis by historical linguists to confirm the hypotheses. The comparative analysis of the sibilants of Castilian and Mozarabic laid out here reveals that there is not a sufficient relationship between the Mozarabic data and the Andalusian data to claim a causal relationship for Andalusian seseo. In fact, it seems that Andalusian seseo is an internal process to Andalusian and occurred independently from linguistic contact with the Mozarabic community. In addition, the geographical considerations cause us to pause and reconsider the relationship between languages of the Iberian Peninsula and the known population settlements. There seems to be a disconnect between geography and language that has been mostly overlooked in the scholarship. Although, on the one hand, scholars have felt comfortable speculating substratum or linguistic influence of native languages in particular areas, on the other, they have shied away from geographical analyses. This is probably due to the fact that linguistic geographical borders are difficult to define diachronically. This is work more suited for synchronic studies by linguistic anthropologists rather than philologists. However, the absence of a sustained consideration of the geography does limit our understanding of the historical linguistic realities. Finally, the question of Mozarabic as the foundation of seseo really stems from the linguists‟ attempts to explain the peculiar development of the Spanish sibilant system which is unlike any of its Romance counterparts, in particular with regards to the apical /s/ so closely identified with Spain. I suggest that the scholarship look more closely towards the Iberian languages (Llecarvones [Murcia to Tarragona], Bastetani [Granada to Almería], Oretani [Jaén to Cuenca]). Although the possibility of an Iberian substratum seems remote, it is interesting to note that the general divisions of these Iberian languages correspond to dialectal divisions in Modern Spain, such as the regions of Granada and Almería, Murcia and Valencia, Cataluyna.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 54
Works Cited
Aillet, Cyrille, Penelas and Philippe Roisse, eds. ¿Existe una identidad mozárabe? Historia, lengua y cultura de los cristianos de al-Andalus (siglos IX-XII). Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2008. Alonso, A. Rafael Lapesa ed. De la pronunciación medieval a la moderna en español. Madrid: Gredos, 1967. Alonso, Amado. “Arabe st>Esp. C.-Esp. st>Arabe ch.” Publications of the Modern Language Association 62.2 (1947): 325-38. ---. “Cómo no se pronunciaban las ç y z antiguas.” Hispania Sacra 34.1 (1951a): 51-53. ---. “Cronología de la igualación C-Z en español.” Hispanic Review 19.1 (1951b): 37- 58. ---. “Cronología de la igualación C-Z en español (conclusión).” Hispanic Review 19.2 (1951c): 143-64. Asín, Oliver. “En torno a los orígenes de Castilla. Su toponimia en relación con los árabes y los beréberes.” Al-Andalus 38.2 (1973): 319-91. Barceló, Carmen. “Mozárabes de Valencia y “Lengua mozárabe”.” Revista de filología española 77/3-4 (1997): 253-79. Beale-Rosano-Rivaya, Yasmine. “Mozarabic: Culture Contact, Language and Diglossia in Medieval Toledo.” Ph.D. Dissertation. UCLA, 2006. Castro, Américo. Los españoles: como llegaron a serlo. Madrid: Taurus, 1965. ---. Origen, ser y existir de los españoles. Madrid: Taurus, 1959. Catlos, Brian. The Victors and the Vanquished: Christians and Muslims of Catalonia and Aragon, 1050-1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Chalmeta, Pedro. Invasión e Islamización, la sumisión de Hispania y la formación de al-Andalus. Madrid: Mapfre, 1994. Corriente, Federico. A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Árabe de Cultura, 1977. Craddock, Jerry. Latin Legacy versus Substratum Residue. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Delgado León, Feliciano. Álvaro de Córdoba y la polémica contra el islam: el indiculus luminosus. Córdoba: Publicaciones Obra Social y Cultural Cajasur, 1996. Fanjul, Serafín. Al-Andalus contra España: la forja del mito. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores, 2000. Ferrando Frutos, Ignacio. El dialecto Andalusí de la marca media: Los documentos mozárabes toledanos de los siglos XII y XIII. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 1995. Fernández y González, Francisco. Estado Social y político de los mudéjares de Castilla, considerados en sí mismo y respecto de la civilización española. Madrid: Imprenta a cargo de Joaquín Muñoz, 1866. ---. Plan de una biblioteca de autores árabes españoles, o Estudios biográficos para servir a la historia de la literatura arábiga en España. Madrid: Imprenta de Manuel Galiano, 1861.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 55
Freixeiro, Susana. “Iberian Seseo.” Wikipedia. En http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IberianSeseo2a.PNG#file. Fuentes, Carlos. The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. Galmés de Fuentes, Álvaro. Dialectología mozárabe. Madrid: Gredos, 1983. ---. Las sibilantes en la romania. Madrid: Gredos, 1962. González Palencia, Ángel. Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII. Madrid: Instituto de Valencia de D. Juan, 1926. Harris, James W. Spanish Phonology. Research Monograph No. 54. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The M.I.T Press, 1980 [1969]. Hitchcock, Richard. Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain: Identities and Influences. Cornwall: Ashgate, 2008. Kern, Robert. The Regions of Spain: a Reference Guide to History and Culture. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1995. Kiddle, Lawrence B. “Sibilant Turmoil in Middle Spanish (1450-1650).” Hispanic Review 45.3 (1977): 327-36. Lapesa, Rafael. Historia de la lengua española. 10th ed. Madrid: Gredos, 1981. Lipski, John. Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman, 1994. Lloyd, Paul M. From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1987. Martin-Márquez, Susan. Disorientations: Spanish Colonialism in Africa and the Performance of Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. Orígenes del español. 8th ed. Madrid, 1976. Monroe, James T. Islam and the Arabs in Spanish Scholarship (Sixteenth Century to the Present). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Parodi, Claudia. Orígenes del español mexicano. México, D. F.: UNAM, 1995. Penny, Ralph. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Pons Boigues, Francisco. Apuntes sobre las escrituras mozárabes toledanas que se conservan en el Archivo Histórico Nacional. Madrid: Viuda e Hijos de Tellos, 1897. Riviere Gómez, Aurora. Orientalismo y Nacionalismo Español. Madrid: Instituto Antonio de Nebrija, 2000. Sanchez-Albornoz, Claudio. “El porque de España, Un enigma Histórico.” Cuadernos de Investigación Histórica 7 (1983): 197-208. Simonet, Francisco Javier. Descripción del reino de Granada sacada de los autores arábigos 711-1492. Amsterdam: Oriental Press, 1979. ---. Glosario de voces ibéricas y latinas usadas entre los mozárabes. Madrid: La Real Academia Española, 1981. ---. Historia de los mozárabes de España. Madrid: Turner, 1867. Torreblanca, Máximo. “El fonema /s/ en la lengua española.” Hispania 61.3 (1978): 498-503.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010 Yasmine Beale-Rivaya 56
---. “La pronunciación española y los métodos de investigación.” Hispania 71 (1988): 669-74. ---. “Latin basium, castellano beso, catalan bes, portugues beijo.” Hispanic Review 56.3 (1988b): 343-48. Tuten, Donald. Koineization in Medieval Spain. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. Vidal, César. España frente al Islam: de Mahoma a Ben Laden. Madrid: Osobelena, 2004.
eHumanista: Volume 14, 2010